I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

Voiceofreason01:I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

He seems to go into greater detail about this on his blog, but it looks like the contentious wording is from a resolution already in place from 1997, and his issue is that re-using the language in this day and age, since "media" covers the internet as well, is problematic.

Snarfangel:Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

Voiceofreason01:I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

Flint Ironstag:Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.

It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

Flint Ironstag:Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.

It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

The ban is on objectifying women in advertising. The industry had 15 years to police themselves, they didn't, and now the EU parliament is stepping in.

If you think it's OK that skinny women (and only skinny women) are used to advertise the majority of product out there, that women are shown in subservient, smiling roles in this advertising, and that there has been no forward progress (and indeed increased objectification in some regards) in 15 years, well... perhaps the EU isn't the place for you.

I'm not surprised that the Internet party wants to keep women naked and objectified in the media.

skullkrusher:Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.

It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

hmm... freedom-y

US First Amendment:Freedom of speech does not include the right: To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. "[S]hout[ing] 'fire' in a crowded theater."). Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

EU voting a ban on pornography, 'Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU' is the innocuous title of a report that sounds like the sort of thing few would object to, but as Swedish Pirate MEP, Christian Engstrom notes, the devil is in the detailsMiss Jones.

Flint Ironstag:skullkrusher: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.

It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

hmm... freedom-y

US First Amendment:Freedom of speech does not include the right: To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. "[S]hout[ing] 'fire' in a crowded theater."). Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Se ...

yet we make a whole shiatload of porn. We can criticize religion. Some might call that immoral. Would be a shame if such people came to power in the EU.

Unemployedingreenland:EU voting a ban on pornography, 'Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU' is the innocuous title of a report that sounds like the sort of thing few would object to, but as Swedish Pirate MEP, Christian Engstrom notes, the devil is in the details Miss Jones.

Bored Horde:The ban is on objectifying women in advertising. The industry had 15 years to police themselves, they didn't, and now the EU parliament is stepping in.

If you think it's OK that skinny women (and only skinny women) are used to advertise the majority of product out there, that women are shown in subservient, smiling roles in this advertising, and that there has been no forward progress (and indeed increased objectification in some regards) in 15 years, well... perhaps the EU isn't the place for you.

I'm not surprised that the Internet party wants to keep women naked and objectified in the media.

What about TV sitcoms where the common, go-to stereotype for men is a wimpy, doofy, and stupid loser who has a wife that's always got a quip, a rebellious teenage daughter...

Snarfangel:Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

vygramul:Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.

It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

skullkrusher:Unemployedingreenland: EU voting a ban on pornography, 'Eliminating Gender Stereotypes in the EU' is the innocuous title of a report that sounds like the sort of thing few would object to, but as Swedish Pirate MEP, Christian Engstrom notes, the devil is in the details Miss Jones.

Endive Wombat:Bored Horde: The ban is on objectifying women in advertising. The industry had 15 years to police themselves, they didn't, and now the EU parliament is stepping in.

If you think it's OK that skinny women (and only skinny women) are used to advertise the majority of product out there, that women are shown in subservient, smiling roles in this advertising, and that there has been no forward progress (and indeed increased objectification in some regards) in 15 years, well... perhaps the EU isn't the place for you.

I'm not surprised that the Internet party wants to keep women naked and objectified in the media.

What about TV sitcoms where the common, go-to stereotype for men is a wimpy, doofy, and stupid loser who has a wife that's always got a quip, a rebellious teenage daughter...

Shouldn't we be doing something about that too?

The woman in that sit-com has no agency beyond enabling her husband and children, and cleaning up their messes. She's also universally a woman between Size 0-6, and has a husband that ranges from slender and athletic to fat and slovenly. Her children are boys and girls of various sizes and inclinations.

Bored Horde:vygramul: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.

It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

The point is, that as access to material through technology changes, bigger societal issues change. 20-30 years ago access to "pornography" for most people, including teens, was maybe a Playboy centerfold with the girl's leg covering her privates. Young people had difficulty accessing this material because they had to physically acquire it but could not legally buy it retail. While not banned in many places, it was understood that it was harmful and degrading to women and thus should not be tolerated in polite society. In the age of the internet pornography has come to mean something much much different: violent, misogynistic rape-simulation where young people are exposed to material like sadomasochism, mock-suffocation, torture, "fisting" and eating of human wastes. Some strong measure of control is required and it's better to err on the side of caution than to risk children being heavily influenced by the most extreme aspects of fringe human sexuality, which could result in a generation of adults desensitized to sexual violence and perversion.

Flint Ironstag:skullkrusher: yet we make a whole shiatload of porn. We can criticize religion. Some might call that immoral. Would be a shame if such people came to power in the EU.

So the EU "morals" clause must be "ban everything!" but the US "obscene" clause isn't really anything?

Strange, it's almost like both the US and the EU rely on courts to decide what the letter of the law means....

"immoral" is a good bit more encompassing than "obscene". Like anything, as long as it is applied in a way that society feels is acceptable (I don't think there's a broad support for legalized neo-nazi speech) it doesn't pose much of a problem.

skullkrusher:Flint Ironstag: skullkrusher: yet we make a whole shiatload of porn. We can criticize religion. Some might call that immoral. Would be a shame if such people came to power in the EU.

So the EU "morals" clause must be "ban everything!" but the US "obscene" clause isn't really anything?

Strange, it's almost like both the US and the EU rely on courts to decide what the letter of the law means....

"immoral" is a good bit more encompassing than "obscene". Like anything, as long as it is applied in a way that society feels is acceptable (I don't think there's a broad support for legalized neo-nazi speech) it doesn't pose much of a problem.

The point is that both are up to the courts to decide where the line falls. Both the US and the UK, for example, have laws restricting free speech in certain areas, whether it's called morality or obscenity, the courts can decide what that means in individual cases.The fact that both countries have fairly freely available porn suggests both courts have taken a similar view. The fact that it in the US that such a big deal was made of Nipplegate while in the UK the biggest selling newspaper has a topless woman on page three every day and no one bats an eye suggests it is the US that is less free.

Flint Ironstag:The fact that both countries have fairly freely available porn suggests both courts have taken a similar view. The fact that it in the US that such a big deal was made of Nipplegate while in the UK the biggest selling newspaper has a topless woman on page three every day and no one bats an eye suggests it is the US that is less free.

Flint Ironstag:Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.

It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

that's search and seizure, not free speech...and yes we Americans are doing a lousy job in that area.

skullkrusher:Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.

It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

hmm... freedom-y

It's like the "void where prohibited" style of mouse print when you buy a goddamn cell phone.

Bored Horde:vygramul: Flint Ironstag: Voiceofreason01: I'll take "why strong free speech protections in the USA are a good thing" for $500 Alex.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.

It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

/for you EU FARKers, this is why we don't get too upset when some street preacher starts ranting about gays or something, because the same laws that protect those assholes protect the rest of us from the kind of bullshiat like in the article.

EU Free speech rights.

It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

Oh, and from your link: "for the protection of health or morals."

Morals? Whose morals?

If you think American laws aren't crafted on morality you're blind.

And in the EU we don't go apeshiat if someone sees a nipple on TV...

The public airwaves have that problem here, but not cable TV.

Both Europe and the US/Canada have an enormous amount of freedoms. But we both have our vulnerabilities and they manifest in different, outrageous ways.

Flint Ironstag:It's always funny when Americans think they're the only people in the world to have rights. /I don't have to carry my driving licence, or any ID, with me. Or have to tell a cop my name if he asks.

On the flip side, your parliament simply marks your email as spam if they don't like you.

Oh, and I don't have to carry my ID or tell a cop my name without cause, either.